Damasen v. Hernando
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute originated from a criminal case for Grave Oral Defamation filed by petitioner Segundina M. Damasen against respondent Cecilia Quimang. While Quimang was convicted of Slight Oral Defamation by the trial court, she was later acquitted by the Court of Appeals. Subsequently, petitioner Damasen initiated an independent civil action for damages against Quimang, which was dismissed by the trial court, ordering Damasen to pay Quimang P1,000.00 for actual damages and P1,000.00 for moral and exemplary damages, plus costs. 2. Procedural History: Following the dismissal of the damages suit and the acquittal in the criminal case, an order for the execution of the damages judgment was granted, which was upheld by the Court of Appeals and this Tribunal. Later, respondent Judge granted a renewed motion for execution and approved, ex-parte, a Bill of Costs submitted by private respondent Quimang. Petitioner Damasen sought reconsideration, leading to an Order dated January 9, 1979, which modified the Bill of Costs, allowing P20.00 for the defendant's attendance and P2,500.00 for attorney's fees, while disallowing the transcript cost. 3. The Petition: This case is before the Supreme Court via a Petition for certiorari with Preliminary Injunction, challenging the January 9, 1979 Order of respondent Judge. Petitioner argues that the respondent Judge gravely abused his discretion by taxing attorney's fees and the defendant's attendance as judicial costs, contrary to Rules 142, Sections 6 and 10 of the Rules of Court. Petitioner also contends that the judge erred in applying Article 2208(1) of the Civil Code to award attorney's fees as costs, as these were not specifically awarded in the final judgment, and that the judge improperly modified a final and executory decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Judge gravely abused his discretion in allowing attorney's fees as part of taxable costs in the Bill of Costs. Whether Article 2208, No. 1 of the Civil Code can be applied to justify the award of attorney's fees as costs when such fees were not specifically included in the final judgment; and whether the respondent Judge substantially altered the final decision of the trial court, which had become final and executory, by allowing attorney's fees as costs.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The Order dated January 9, 1979, approving the Bill of Costs, is set aside. The amount of P2,500.00 as attorney's fees included as costs is eliminated. The recoverable items of costs are limited to those enumerated in the Rules of Court.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of attorney's fees as taxable costs: The Supreme Court held that judicial costs are statutory allowances for expenses incurred in an action, referring only to parties and amounts paid by them. Section 6 of Rule 142 of the Rules of Court clearly stipulates that no attorney's fees shall be taxed as costs against the adverse party, except as provided by the rules of civil law, and this section does not relate to fees charged by an attorney against his client. The Court emphasized that attorney's fees are not normally taxable as costs and are not included within the expenses of a trial or proceeding. The Court cited established jurisprudence to support this principle. On the application of Article 2208, No. 1 of the Civil Code and the modification of a final judgment: While Article 2208 of the Civil Code allows for the recovery of attorney's fees in certain cases, including when exemplary damages are awarded, the Supreme Court clarified that this provision does not dispense with the necessity of proving the amount of attorney's fees. Furthermore, the Court explained that the respondent Judge's interpretation was erroneous because although exemplary damages were awarded, attorney's fees were not specifically included in the judgment proper or its dispositive portion. If attorney's fees were justified, a specific provision should have been embodied in the judgment itself. The Court stressed that the adjudication of attorney's fees requires judicial discretion, whereas the taxation of costs is a ministerial duty. Therefore, attorney's fees cannot be adjudicated in a Bill of Costs subsequent to a final judgment if not previously awarded therein. The Court reiterated that the award of attorney's fees remains exceptional and requires express findings of fact justifying the grant. The Court found that the respondent Judge substantially altered the final decision of the trial court, which had become final and executory, by allowing attorney's fees as costs. This was deemed an act gravely abusing discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The final judgment had already determined the damages and costs, and a subsequent Bill of Costs could not introduce new claims or modify the original award. The Court noted that the only recoverable costs in this instance, based on the Rules of Court and the final judgment, were P15.00 for the answer and P20.00 for the attendance of the defendant, totaling P35.00.
Main Doctrine
Attorney's fees are generally not taxable as costs unless specifically provided by law or stipulated by the parties, and an award for attorney's fees cannot be made in a bill of costs subsequent to a final judgment if not included in the dispositive portion thereof.